Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Washington, D.C. 20554
FCC 95-503
In the Matter of
Implementation of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection 
and Competition Act of 1992:
Cable Home Wiring
MM Docket No. 92-260
FIRST ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND 
FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: December 15, 1995
By the Commission: Commissioner Chong issuing a statement.
Comment Date: March 18, 1996 
Reply Comment Date: April 17, 1996
Released: January 26, 1996
Table of Contents
Paragraph
I. Introduction ................................................. 1
II. Order on Reconsideration ....................................... 2
A. Customer Access to Cable Home Wiring prior to
Termination of Service .................................... 2
B. Disposition of Cable Home Wiring upon
Termination of Service ....................... r. ........... 10
C. Demarcation Point for Multiple Dwelling Units with
Non-Loop-Through Wiring ................................ 23
D. Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with Loop-Through
Wiring .............................................. 31
E. Inclusion of Passive Splitters within Cable Home Wiring ............ 35
III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ............................. 38
A. Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with Loop-Through
Wiring ............................................... 38
4561
B. Others' Rights to Cable Home Wiring ......................... 39
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................... 41
V. Procedural Provisions .......................................... 53
VI. Ordering Clauses ............................................. 57
Appendix A: Petitions for Reconsideration, Responses and Replies 
Appendix B: Revised Rules
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this First Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, we grant in part and deny in part petitions for reconsideration of the 
Commission's initial cable home wiring regulations implementing Section 16(d) of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act"),' and 
request comment on certain outstanding issues, as provided below. Generally, we: (1) deny 
the petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's cable home wiring rules, except (a) to 
specify the procedure a cable operator must follow when a subscriber voluntarily terminates 
cable service, if the operator wishes to remove the home wiring, and (b) to shorten from 30 
days to seven business days the time period after termination of service within which the 
cable operator has the right to remove any home wiring it owns; and (2) issue a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requesting comment on (a) whether the cable home wiring 
rules should apply to so-called "loop-through" configurations where all subscribers in a 
particular system elect to switch to an alternative multichannel video programming service 
provider, and (b) whether persons other than the individual subscriber should have the right to 
purchase cable home wiring under certain specific circumstances.
2. The Commission received three petitions for reconsideration of the Report and 
Order in MM Docket No. 92-260 ("Cable Wiring Order")2 - all from potential or current 
competitors to cable operators   as well as replies to these petitions from cable operators.3 
The regulations adopted in the Cable Wiring Order state that cable operators, upon voluntary 
termination of service by a subscriber, must give the subscriber the opportunity to purchase 
the cable home wiring for no more than the per-foot replacement cost. Cable home wiring is 
defined as the internal cable wiring within the premises of the subscriber, beginning at the
1 Pub. L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992), 47 U.S.C. § 521, et seq. (1992). The 
1992 Cable Act amends Title 6 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
("Communications Act"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
2 8 FCC Red 1435 (1993).
3 A list of parties who filed petitions for reconsideration, responses and replies in MM 
Docket No. 92-260 is attached as Appendix A.
4562
demarcation point. The rules define the demarcation point as at or about 12 inches outside of 
where the wire enters the subscriber's premises or dwelling unit. If the subscriber declines to 
purchase the wiring, the operator must remove the wiring within 30 days, or make no 
subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use." Petitioners' arguments include the 
following (a) that subscribers should be permitted to purchase or to control the cable home 
wiring upon installation rather than upon termination of service, (b) that cable operators 
should be prohibited from misrepresenting whether they intend to remove or abandon the 
home wiring following termination of service, (c) that the demarcation point for multiple 
dwelling units should be relocated, (d) that loop-through wiring configurations should be 
included within our rules under certain circumstances, and (e) that passive cable equipment 
should be included within the definition of cable home wiring.
H. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
A. Customer Access to Cable Home Wiring prior to Termination of Service 
/. Background
3. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act requires the Commission to "prescribe 
rules concerning the disposition, after a subscriber terminates service, of any cable installed by 
the cable operator within the premises of such subscriber."5 The Commission's regulations 
implementing Section 16(d) provide that, when a customer voluntarily terminates service, the 
cable operator must give that subscriber the opportunity to acquire the wiring before the 
operator removes it. The subscriber may purchase the wiring inside his or her premises up to 
the demarcation point, which we defined as a point at or about twelve inches outside the 
subscriber's premises. The operator may not charge the subscriber any more than the 
replacement cost of the wire, priced on a per-foot basis. If the subscriber declines to purchase 
the wiring, the operator must remove it within 30 days or make no subsequent attempt to 
remove it or to restrict its use.6
4. In the 1993 Cable Wiring Order, we said that it was not "necessary or 
appropriate under the statute" to apply our cable home wiring rules prior to the time the 
customer terminates cable service.7 We noted that the plain language of Section 16(d) of the 
1992 Cable Act refers only to the disposition of cable home wiring after termination of 
service, and that cable home wiring is different from telephone wiring in that, for example, 
cable operators have the responsibility to prevent signal leakage which can cause harmful
4 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.801, 76.802.
s Communications Act, § 624(i), 47 U.S.C. § 544(i).
6 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.5(11) - (mm), 76.801, 76.802.
7 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1435.
4563
interference to licensed radio spectrum users, a responsibility telephone companies do not 
have.8 We also cited the House Report on the 1992 Cable Act which stated that Section 16(d) 
itself "does not address matters concerning the cable facilities inside the subscriber's home 
prior to termination of service."9 At the same time, the Commission stated:
[a] 1 though we generally believe that broader cable home wiring rules could 
foster competition and could potentially be considered in the context of other 
proceedings, because of the time constraints under which we must promulgate 
rules as required by the Cable Act of 1992, we decline to address such rule 
proposals in this proceeding. 10
2. Petitions
5. The NYNEX Telephone Companies, New England Telephone and Telegraph 
Company and New York Telephone Company (collectively, "NYNEX") urge the Commission 
to apply the cable home wiring rules prior to termination of service so that the subscriber may 
control cable home wiring immediately upon installation." NYNEX asserts, among other 
things, that consumers should be able to control the cable home wiring upon installation so 
that they can obtain additional services from other multichannel video programming service 
providers through simultaneous use of the wire's spare capacity. 12 The United States
Id. at 1436.
9 Id. at n.13, citing H.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., at 118 (1992) ("House 
Report").
10 Id. at 1436.
11 NYNEX Petition at 5; see also Electronic Industries Association, Consumer 
Electronics Group ("EIA/CEG") Comments at 3; Ex Parte Letter from Barbara N. McLennan, 
Staff Vice President, Technology Policy, Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronics 
Industries Association, to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission (January 26, 1995) at 1. EIA/CEG favors allowing consumers to own or lease 
their cable home wiring and to choose the quality, configuration and usage of wiring that best 
suit their needs. This approach, EIA/CEG contends, would limit the exercise of monopoly 
power in the wiring market and make it easier for consumers to shift from cable service to an 
alternative video distribution service. EIA/CEG Comments at 3; EIA/CEG Ex Parte Letter, 
supra, at 1.
12 NYNEX Petition at 6.
4564
Telephone Association ("USTA") and the Bell Atlantic telephone companies13 ("Bell 
Atlantic") support NYNEX's proposal.14
6. On the other hand, the National Cable Television Association, Inc. ("NCTA"), 
states that the Commission's current rules fully effectuate the statutory language and the 
underlying purposes of the 1992 Cable Act. 15 NCTA and Time Warner Entertainment 
Company, L.P. ("Time Warner"), claim that the Commission lacks the authority under the 
1992 Cable Act to mandate that operators convey ownership to subscribers at the time of 
installation. 16
7. Tune Warner also contends that any "forced abandonment" of a cable 
operator's ownership interest in home wiring, whether before or after termination of service, 
constitutes an impermissible "taking" of property without just compensation. 17 Specifically, 
Time Warner asserts that the Commission's current rules violate the takings clause by 
providing that if a cable operator fails to remove its home wiring within 30 days following 
termination of service, the operator is prohibited from subsequently attempting to remove the 
wiring or restrict its use. 18
3. Discussion
8. The Commission's current cable home wiring rules implement the specific 
directive of Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act, i.e., to establish rules governing the 
disposition of cable home wiring upon termination of cable service. Our current rules 
promote the goals of Section 16(d), which are to protect customers from unnecessary 
disruption and expense caused by the removal of home wiring and to allow subscribers to use
13 As of the date of their filing in this proceeding, the Bell Atlantic telephone companies 
were The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, the four Chesapeake and Potomac 
telephone companies, The Diamond State Telephone Company and New Jersey Bell 
Telephone Company.
14 USTA Supporting Statement at 3-4; USTA Reply Comments at 1-5; Bell Atlantic 
Reply at 2-3; see also GTE Supporting Comments at 2.
15 NCTA Opposition at 1.
16 Id at 10; Time Warner Response at 11.
17 Time Warner Response at 11-12.
18 Id.
4565
the wiring for an alternative multichannel video programming delivery system. 19 On 
reconsideration, we are not persuaded, based on the record in this proceeding at this time, to 
expand our cable home wiring rules under Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act. At the same 
time, we recognize that new competitors, such as wireless cable, satellite master antenna 
television services ("SMATVs") and telephone companies, and new technologies, such as 
video dialtone, are likely to change the video programming delivery marketplace. The 
Commission must therefore consider broad telecommunications issues which extend beyond 
the 1992 Cable Act and the record in this proceeding in determining whether to expand the 
cable home wiring rules in ways that could have competitive implications for cable operators 
and other multichannel video programming providers, as well as other providers of 
telecommunications services. Given the potential for the convergence of telephone, data and 
video technologies, it may be appropriate to consider requiring cable operators to permit 
subscriber access to inside wiring prior to termination of service in order to promote 
consumer choice and competition. Parity with telephone inside wiring may also be desirable 
if a cable operator wants to provide telephone or other common carrier service over its 
coaxial cable, but the record in this proceeding does not provide us with sufficient information 
upon which to base such a determination. The Commission will therefore further explore this 
issue in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") in CS Docket No. 95-184 being 
adopted concurrently herewith.
9. In addition, we determine that our current rules (as well as our revised rules 
described below) do not constitute an unconstitutional taking, because they implement a clear 
statutory directive and provide that, upon termination of service, the cable operator can 
receive just compensation for its home wiring or remove the wiring. See United States v. 
Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., which states that "so long as compensation is available for 
those whose property is in fact taken, the governmental action is not unconstitutional."20 Nor 
do we believe that our rules are rendered unconstitutional by the fact that the cable operator is 
deemed to have waived the availability of compensation if it fails to remove its home wiring 
within a given time period following termination of service. Compensation is available, under 
reasonable terms and conditions, if the cable operator chooses to take that option. See 
United States v. Locked which rejects a Fifth Amendment taking claim where the plaintiff 
failed to comply with a statutory requirement for filing a mining claim that would have 
indicated its intent to retain its property right. Texaco, Inc. v. Short22 notes that the U.S. 
Supreme Court has never required giving compensation to a private property owner who fails
19 See House Report at 118; S. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess., at 23 (1991) ("Senate 
Report"); see also Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1435; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
in MM Docket No. 92-260, 7 FCC Red 7349.
20 474 U.S. 121, 128 (1985).
21 471 U.S. 84, 107 (1985).
22 454 U.S. 516, 530 (1982).
4566
to take reasonable actions imposed by law for the consequences of his own neglect. We note 
that the prescribed time period (formerly 30 days and, as described below, now seven business 
days) within which a cable operator may remove the cable home wiring it owns provides the 
operator with a reasonable opportunity to remove the wire if it so wishes.
10. With regard to NYNEX's contention that consumer access to cable home 
wiring prior to termination of service would allow consumers to obtain broadband services 
from more than one multichannel video programming service provider simultaneously over 
one coaxial cable, it is our understanding that, while such simultaneous use may be possible 
in the laboratory, it is not technically or economically feasible in the marketplace at the 
present time.23 Apparently, for example, broadband networks are highly susceptible to signal 
impairments from outside sources, such as over-the-air broadcast signals, a danger that would 
be magnified significantly by the insertion of an additional broadband service within the 
wiring itself.24 Therefore, we deny NYNEX's petition as premature insofar as it seeks rules 
designed to allow simultaneous use by a broadband video competitor of excess capacity on 
cable home wiring. Furthermore, we note that the current cable wiring rules do not prohibit 
simultaneous use, regardless of whether the cable operator or the subscriber owns or controls 
the cable home wiring. Because we agree that simultaneous use of the same wire by 
competitors could promote competition and increase consumer choice, however, if 
simultaneous use of cable wiring becomes economically and technically feasible, the 
Commission may address any issues raised at that time.
B. Disposition of Cable Home Wiring upon Termination of Service 
/. Background
11. The Cable Wiring Order provides that when a subscriber calls to voluntarily 
terminate cable service, the operator is required, if it proposes to remove the wiring, to inform 
the subscriber (a) that he or she may purchase the wire, and (b) what the cost per-foot charge 
is.25 If the subscriber declines to purchase the home wiring, the operator must remove it 
within 30 days or lose the right to remove it or restrict its use.26 These rules were designed to 
advance Section 16(d)'s goals: to avoid the disruption of having the wiring removed and to
23 See, e.g., TKR Cable Company ("TKR") Opposition at 5-6; Time Warner Response at 
14.
24 See, e.g., Ex Parte Letter from Continental Cablevision, Inc. to William F. Caton, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (January 26, 1995).
25 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1438.
26 Id.; See 47 C.F.R. § 76.802.
4567
permit subscribers to use the wiring with an alternative video service provider.27 
2. Petitions
12. Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. ("WCA") asserts that cable 
operators may attempt to deter subscribers from switching to alternative multichannel video 
programming service providers by claiming that they intend to remove the cable wiring even 
if they intend to abandon it.28 WCA posits that the cable operator might falsely proclaim such 
an intent in order to prevent an alternative provider from using the wiring during the 30-day 
period afforded the operator to remove the wiring. WCA argues that a cable operator could 
thus force a subscriber who wants to receive service from ?n alternative provider to either: 
(a) go without service for up to 30 days; (b) tolerate the inconvenience and "visual blight" of 
having a second cable installed; or (c) pay for cabling that the cable operator generally 
abandons. WCA claims that, since some subscribers might elect to remain with the 
incumbent cable operator rather than face such a choice, the current rules could defeat the 
purpose behind Section 16(d).29
13. WCA proposes that the Commission take several steps to address its concern: 
(a) decrease the period following termination during which cable operators must remove cable 
home wiring from 30 days to seven days; (b) prohibit cable operators from terminating 
service until either the cable is removed or the seven-day period expires; and (c) establish 
procedures for the filing of complaints against cable operators that demonstrate a pattern of 
misrepresenting their intentions to remove wiring.30 In addition, WCA urges the Commission 
to bar cable operators from discriminating against consumers who terminate service in favor 
of an alternative service provider.31 Finally, WCA suggests that the "appointment window" 
rules adopted in MM Docket No. 92-263 (Customer Service Standards)32 apply to 
appointments to remove wiring, and that a failure to comply would result in the automatic 
transfer of the wiring to the subscriber.33 Several parties have filed comments in support of
27 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1435.
28 See WCA Petition at 3-5.
29 Id
30 Id at 5-6.
31 Id at 6-7.
32 See 47 CFR § 76.309(c)(2)(iii).
33 WCA Petition at 5, n.8.
	4568
WCA's proposals.3!
14. In response, TKR Cable Company argues that WCA's claim that operators will 
falsely state their intention to remove the wiring is "speculative," and, even if true, would not 
warrant action on reconsideration.35 Similarly, Time Warner asserts that WCA's concern that 
cable operators will discriminate against customers who choose an alternative service provider 
is unfounded because a cable operator cannot require any subscriber to purchase his home 
wiring, and that WCA's proposal to shorten the period for operators to remove or abandon the 
wiring from 30 days to seven days is "simply another twist on the argument articulated by 
NYNEX supporting forced abandonment of the wiring upon installation."36 Moreover, NCTA 
argues that WCA's proposals are merely an attempt by alternative video programming service 
providers to gain a "free ride" off wiring installed by and belonging to the incumbent cable 
operator. As an alternative, NCTA states that alternative providers could offer to purchase the 
wiring from the incumbent operator, or at least offer to reimburse the subscriber if the 
subscriber chooses to purchase the wiring.37 NCTA further argues that the 30-day removal 
period ensures that subscribers have ample time to decide whether or not to purchase the 
wiring.
15. In reply, WCA asserts that none of the responses addresses the fundamental 
unfairness of permitting cable operators to discriminate against subscribers who terminate 
service in favor of an alternative service provider.38 WCA argues that, pursuant to the 
uniform pricing mandate of the 1992 Cable Act, cable operators.should be prohibited from 
establishing separate purchase policies for those who terminate service in order to subscribe to 
another distributor's offering.39 WCA further states that NCTA's argument that the alternative 
service provider could purchase the wiring ignores two points: first, the alternative provider 
often cannot use the incumbent operator's wiring, and thus a delay in the removal of the 
wiring forces the consumer either to have two wires installed or to delay installation of the 
new service; second, there is an anti-consumer impact of fraudulently inducing anyone 
(including the alternative service provider) to purchase home wiring that the cable operator
34 See USTA Supporting Statement at 2; WJB-TV Limited Partnership Response at n.2; 
Bell Atlantic Response at n.7.
35 TKR Opposition at 6-7.
36 Time Warner Response at 14-15 and n. 29.
37 NCTA Opposition at 2-3.
38 WCA Reply at 3-4.
39 Id. at 4-5. See also WCA Petition at 6-7.
4569
intends to abandon, since that cost will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.40 Regarding 
its proposal to shorten the length of time afforded a cable operator to remove home wiring 
that is not purchased by a terminating subscriber, WCA asserts that Time Warner provides no 
factual support for its claim that requiring the removal of home wiring within seven days is 
tantamount to a forced abandonment.41 Indeed, WCA argues that such a suggestion is 
"absurd," given that NCTA's own voluntary customer standards, and the Commission's 
customer service standards, provide that service interruptions generally must be repaired 
within one day and that standard new installations must be complete within seven business 
days.42 Finally, WCA asserts that NCTA's argument that the thirty-day time period ensures 
that subscribers have ample time to determine whether to purchase the wiring is 
"disingenuous, at best," since the thirty day period for removal of the home wiring does not 
begin running until the subscriber decides whether or not to make a purchase.43
16. In addition, Ameritech New Media Enterprises, Inc. ("Ameritech") proposes 
that ownership of cable home wiring should transfer to the subscriber upon termination.44 
Ameritech proposes that, at a minimum, in cases of voluntary termination where a subscriber 
is notified of the right to purchase his or her home wiring and the subscriber exercises that 
right, constructive ownership should vest with the subscriber immediately and the subscriber 
should be free to authorize the connection of the wiring to a competing service provider. 
Ameritech asserts that failure of the incumbent cable provider to notify the subscriber of his 
or her right to purchase the home wiring upon termination should result in the immediate 
transfer of ownership rights in the wiring to the subscriber.45
3. Discussion
17. As we noted in the Cable Wiring Order, the purpose of Section 16(d) is to 
promote consumer choice and competition by permitting subscribers to avoid the disruption of 
having their home wiring removed upon voluntary termination, and to subsequently utilize 
that wiring for an alternative video programming service.46 While we believe that our current
40 Id. at 5-6.
41 Id. &t6.
42 Id. at 6-7. See also WCA Petition at 5.
43 Id. atn.ll
44 See Ex Parte Letter from Ameritech to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission (September 7, 1995).
45 Id.
46 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1435.
4570
rules advance these, goals,47 we believe that they do not address certain issues « such as when 
actual control of the home wiring transfers to the subscriber   that could cause needless 
consumer confusion and marketplace uncertainty. We therefore believe that the goals of 
Section 16(d) would be better served if our rules set forth a simple, clear process by which: 
(a) consumers can obtain, in a single contact, the information they need to decide whether 
they wish to purchase their home wiring upon termination; (b) consumers can thereafter 
quickly and easily use the wiring to connect to an alternative video programming service 
provider; and (c) cable operators' legitimate property rights are protected. Thus, we hereby 
amend our rules regarding the disposition of home wiring upon the voluntary termination of 
service as follows.
18. During the initial telephone call in which a subscriber advises the cable 
operator that he or she is voluntarily terminating service, the operator ~ if it owns and intends 
to remove the home wiring   must inform the subscriber of four things:
(a) that the cable operator owns the home wiring -- as discussed in the Cable Wiring 
Order, the record reveals that, in many circumstances, the subscriber already owns the 
home wiring at termination (e.g., where the operator has charged the subscriber for the 
wiring upon installation, has treated the wiring as belonging to the subscriber for tax 
purposes, or where state and/or local law treats cable home wiring as a fixture); it is 
the operator's responsibility to maintain adequate records to document its ownership;48
(b) that the cable operator intends to remove the home wiring;
(c) that the subscriber has a right to purchase the home wiring; and
(d) what the per-foot replacement cost and total charge for the wiring would be, 
including the replacement cost for any passive splitters attached to the wiring on the 
subscriber's side of the demarcation point49 ~ our current rules state that the operator
47 Again, our current rules provide that when a subscriber calls to voluntarily terminate 
cable service, the operator is required, if it proposes to remove the wiring, to (a) inform the 
subscriber that he or she may purchase the wire, and (b) what the cost per foot charge is. 
Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1438.
48 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1437. A "fixture" is an article of personal 
property that has been so annexed to the realty that it is regarded as part of the land. See 
Black's Law Dictionary 574 (5th ed. 1979).
49 See Section II.E. below for our discussion of the inclusion of passive splitters within 
the definition of cable home wiring.
4571
must inform the subscriber of the per-foot replacement cost,50 and that its charge for 
the wiring may be based on "a reasonable .approximation" of the length of cabling in 
the subscriber's premises.51 An operator has two options for making a "reasonable 
approximation" of the total charge during the contact terminating service. First, the 
operator can develop schedules to make such approximations based on readily 
available information, such as whether the subscriber lives in a single family dwelling 
or an apartment, the number of outlets installed, or the number of television sets in 
use. If the operator chooses to develop such schedules, it must place them in a public 
file and make them available for public inspection during regular business hours. In 
the alternative, the operator may maintain records reflecting the actual amount of home 
wiring installed on subscribers' premises, but this information must be available for 
calculating the total charge for the wiring during the initial phone call.
Where an operator fails to adhere to the above procedures, it will be deemed to have 
relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring; thus, the 
operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and may make no subsequent 
attempt to remove it or restrict its use. By referring to "subscriber" herein, we do not intend 
to prohibit a subscriber from delegating to an agent the task of terminating service and 
authorizing the purchase of home wiring on his or her behalf.
19. We believe that the vast majority of subscribers who terminate cable service do 
so over the telephone. If, however, a subscriber voluntarily terminates cable service in person 
(i.e., at the cable operator's offices), the same procedures apply. If a subscriber requests 
termination in writing, it is the operator's responsibility ~ if it intends to remove the wiring   
to make reasonable efforts to contact the subscriber prior to the date of service termination 
and provide the subscriber with the information set forth above. Again, where an operator 
fails to comply with these procedures, it will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any 
and all ownership interests in the home wiring; thus, the operator will not be entitled to 
compensation for the wiring and may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its 
use.
20. If the cable operator informs the subscriber as described above, and, at that 
point, the subscriber agrees to purchase the wiring, constructive ownership over the home 
wiring will transfer to the subscriber immediately, and the subscriber will be permitted to
50 In the Cable Wiring Order (at n. 39), we stated that we expected the per foot charge to 
be based on the replacement cost of coaxial cable in the community; for instance, we noted 
that the record indicated that new coaxial cable was being sold for six cents per foot by 
District Cablevision in Washington, D.C.
51 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1438.
4572
authorize a competing service provider to connect with and use the home wiring.52 We 
believe that such a fransfer of control presents no Fifth Amendment difficulties, since the 
operator will ultimately be compensated for its wiring (at which point actual ownership of the 
wiring will transfer to the subscriber).53 We are, however, cognizant of the potential for 
harmful signal leakage if this change-over is mishandled. The Commission has repeatedly 
expressed its concern over the threat posed by excessive signal leakage, and in particular the 
threat to aeronautical communications and other safety-of-life users that operate over the same 
frequencies.54 Thus, where the incumbent cable operator has not yet terminated service and 
"capped off1 its line,55 the alternative video programming service provider will be responsible 
for ensuring that the incumbent's wiring is properly capped off in accordance with the 
Commission's signal leakage requirements.56 If there is no alternative provider ~ i.e., if the 
subscriber is terminating service but will not be using the home wiring to receive another 
multichannel video service   the cable operator will remain responsible for properly capping 
off its own line. We require incumbent cable operators to take reasonable steps within their 
control to ensure that the alternative service provider has access to the home wiring at the 
demarcation point (e.g., by providing prompt access to the cable operator's lockbox where the 
placement of the lockbox impedes access to the demarcation point), and for incumbents and 
alternative multichannel video programming delivery service providers to minimize the 
potential for signal leakage, theft of service and unnecessary disruption of the consumer's 
premises.
52 Of course, as NCTA states, the alternative video programming service provider is free 
to reimburse the subscriber for the cost of the home wiring. We expect such reimbursement 
to be a common practice, since from both an economic and customer relations standpoint, 
reimbursing a subscriber for the purchase of existing home wiring will almost certainly be 
preferable to re-wiring the premises.
53 See United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 128 (1985) (Fifth 
Amendment does not prohibit "takings," only uncompensated ones).
54 See, e.g., Amendment of Part 76 of the Commission's Rules to Add Frequency 
Channelling Requirements and Restrictions and to Require Monitoring for Signal Leakage 
From Cable Television Systems, Second Report and Order in Docket No. 21006, 99 F.C.C.2d 
512 (1984); recon. denied, 100 F.C.C.2d 117 (1985).
55 "Capping off" is a procedure whereby a terminating "cap" is placed over a wire to 
prevent potentially harmful signal leakage.
56 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.605(a)(13) and 76.610 -76.617. Among other sanctions, the 
Commission has the authority to impose forfeiture penalties for violations of its signal leakage 
rules of up to $25,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, not to exceed 
$250,000 for a single act or failure to act. See Communications Act, Section 503(b), 47 
U.S.C. § 503(b).
4573
21. If, on the other hand, the subscriber declines to purchase the home wiring, the 
operator will have seven business days, rather than the current 30 days, to remove the wiring. 
If the operator does not remove the home wiring within this seven business day period, the 
operator may make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use. We believe that 
requiring subscribers to wait 30 days before learning whether the cable operator would 
remove its wiring causes needless uncertainty for the consumer and the possibility of a 
lengthy disruption in service. We also believe that, under normal operating conditions, it is 
not unreasonable to require cable operators to remove their wiring within seven business days. 
We note, in this regard, that the Commission's customer service standards, and NCTA's own 
voluntary standards, provide that cable operators should perform standard installations within 
seven business days.57 We agree with WCA that if cable operators can be expected to install 
home wiring within seven business days, it is not unreasonable to expect them to remove that 
wiring within the same time frame.58 However, we decline at this time to apply the 
Commission's "appointment window" rules to appointments to remove wiring; we believe that 
WCA has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that such a change is necessary at 
this time. Given the uniform federal and industry standard on installations, we reject Time 
Warner's contention that a seven-day removal period'is a forced, rather than a voluntary, 
abandonment of property. It is the operator's failure to act within a reasonable time after the 
subscriber requests that its wiring be removed   not the Commission's rule   that 
extinguishes the cable operator's rights.59 We also reject NCTA's assertion that a 30-day 
removal period is required to ensure that consumers have adequate time to decide whether or 
not to purchase the wiring. If the subscriber asks for more time to make a decision on 
whether to purchase the home wiring, the seven business-day period will not begin running 
until the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring. Until the subscriber contacts the operator 
with a decision, he or she may not use the wiring to connect to an alternative service 
provider.
22. We believe that the above procedures, although not unduly burdensome, may 
not be necessary hi most circumstances. We understand that cable operators typically 
abandon cable home wiring because the cost and effort required to remove it generally 
outweigh its value. Abandoning the wiring also permits easy reconnection if a subscriber 
later decides to re-institute service. Accordingly, in most cases, the cable operator may 
simply remain silent on the subject of home wiring when the subscriber requests termination 
of service. If, for whatever reason, the cable operator does not discuss the disposition of the
57 47 C.F.R. § 76.309(c)(2); see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 92- 
263, 7 FCC Red 8641, 8643-44 (1993) (noting NCTA standard and that Congress suggested 
that the NCTA standard may be an appropriate federal "benchmark").
58 See WCA Petition at 5; WCA Reply at 7.
59 See Texaco, 454 U.S. at 530 (noting that the Court has never required compensation to 
a private property owner who fails to take reasonable actions imposed by law for the 
consequences of his own neglect).
4574
home wiring with the subscriber in accordance with the above procedures, the operator will be 
deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in the home wiring. 
Thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and may make no 
subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use.
23. While we acknowledge WCA's concerns that cable operators could 
misrepresent their intention to remove the wiring, or that operators may discriminate against 
subscribers who terminate service in favor of an alternative provider, there is no evidence in 
the record for us to conclude that these are significant problems. Moreover, we believe we 
have alleviated WCA's concern regarding subscribers being without service for up to 30 days 
by requiring cable operators to remove the home wiring within seven business days. Also, a 
subscriber could be assured of continuous service simply by agreeing to purchase the home 
wiring at termination of service.60 .
24. As stated above, we believe that the above clarifications and modifications will 
further the purposes of Section 16(d). Consumers will be presented with the information they 
need regarding their home wiring in a single telephone call, and can quickly and easily use 
the wiring to connect to an alternative video programming service. Incumbent operators' 
responsibilities are clearly defined and their property rights protected. Alternative video 
programming delivery service providers will be able to assure potential customers that 
switching services will not be an onerous process and that their service will not be disrupted.
C. Demarcation Point for Multiple Dwelling Units with Non-Loop-Through 
Wiring
1. Background
25. Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act states that the Commission shall prescribe 
rules concerning cable wire "within the premises of [the] subscriber."61 Section 76.5(11) of the 
Commission's rules defines cable home wiring as the "internal wiring contained within the 
premises of a subscriber which begins at the demarcation point."62 Under the current rules, 
the demarcation point is the point from which the customer has the right to purchase cable 
home wiring upon voluntary termination of service, the location from which the subscriber 
may control the internal home wiring if he or she owns it, and the point where a potential 
alternative multichannel video programming service provider can attach its wiring to the 
subscriber's wiring in order to provide service. The Commission's rules set the demarcation
60 Again, we believe that, as a matter of economics and customer relations, alternative 
video programming service providers may often reimburse subscribers for the cost of the 
home wiring.
61 Communications Act, § 624(i), 47 U.S.C. § 544(i).
62 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(11).
4575
point for single dwelling units "at (or about) twelve inches outside of where the cable wire 
enters the subscriber's premises," and for multiple dwelling units "at (or about) twelve inches 
outside of where the cable wire enters the subscriber's [individual] dwelling unit."63 The 
Cable Wiring Order states that this rule is consistent with the legislative history and 
comments, and that it gives alternative providers adequate access to cable home wiring so that 
they may connect the wiring to their systems without disrupting the subscriber's premises.64
26. The wiring in multiple dwelling unit buildings is generally in either a non-loop- 
through or loop-through configuration. In a non-loop-through configuration, each subscriber 
has a dedicated line extending from a trunk or feeder line to the individual's premises. The 
point at which the drop meets the feeder line in multiple dwelling unit buildings is usually in 
a security box or utility closet. Depending on the size and layout of the multiple dwelling 
unit building, security boxes can be located on each floor on a stairwell wall or in a closet, or 
at a single point either inside a basement or outside the multiple dwelling unit building. A 
loop-through configuration is one in which a single cable provides service to a group of 
subscribers by being strung from one subscriber's unit to the next subscriber's unit in the 
same building. See Section II.D. below for our discussion of loop-through wiring 
configurations.
2. Petitions
27. NYNEX asks that the Commission reconsider its decision to locate the 
demarcation point for multiple dwelling units at or about twelve inches outside of where the 
cable enters a subscriber's individual dwelling unit.65 Where there are active electronics 
located in the multiple dwelling unit, NYNEX contends that "subscriber control should extend 
to the point at which unpowered coaxial cable begins."66 Where there are no active 
electronics located in the multiple dwelling unit, NYNEX asserts that "subscriber control of 
cable home wiring should extend to the grounding block, or if there is no grounding block, to 
an interface point established on the exterior of the multiple unit premises."67 NYNEX states 
that the Commission's current rules are anti-competitive because they require an alternative 
cable service provider to install duplicate wire up to the twelve-inch point outside of where 
the wire enters the subscriber's premises, which would either be prohibitively expensive or
63 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(mm)(l)-(2) (1992); see also Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 
1437.
64 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1437.
65 The demarcation point for single dwelling unit installations is not an issue raised on 
reconsideration.
66 NYNEX Petition at 3.
67 Id. at 4-6.
4576
impossible due to space limitations or the location of the wiring inside a wall in a building.68
28. Liberty Cable Company, Inc. ("Liberty"), asks that the demarcation point for 
multiple dwelling units be at the point outside a subscriber's premises and within the common 
areas of the multiple dwelling unit building where the individual subscriber's wires can be 
detached from the cable operator's common wires without harming the multiple dwelling unit 
and without interfering with the cable operator's provision of service to other residents in the 
building.69 Liberty contends that this would allow alternative multichannel video 
programming service providers to access existing cable home wiring without disrupting either 
the subscriber's home or the multiple dwelling unit building's common area, and would 
enhance competition by making it easier for the subscriber to switch from one alternative 
multichannel video programming service provider to another.70 In response to Time Warner's 
suggestion that any "forced abandonment" of cable wiring within a multiple dwelling unit 
building would constitute an impermissible taking, Liberty asserts that the inside wiring rules 
do not compel the permanent physical possession of the wiring by a third party, but merely 
regulate the manner hi which the wiring is dealt with upon termination of the voluntary 
commercial relationship between the cable operator, the subscriber and the multiple dwelling 
unit building owner.71 Citing FCC v. Florida Power Corp. ,n Liberty argues that this type of 
regulation, affecting only the terms and conditions of a voluntary commercial relationship, 
does not constitute a talcing.
29. WCA agrees with Liberty, stating that the Commission should establish the 
demarcation point in multiple dwelling units "at the point where the wire is solely dedicated 
to serving a single unit"73 USTA supports the petitions for reconsideration submitted by 
WCA, Liberty and NYNEX in asking the Commission to define the demarcation point to be 
at a relatively convenient and cost effective access point.74 USTA reasons that access to an 
alternative service provider should be no more burdensome than access by the existing 
provider.75 EIA/CEG supports adoption of generalized demarcation policies for cable, based
68 Id, at 3; see also Pacific Bell Comments at 1-2.
69 Liberty Petition at 4-5; see also WJB-TV Response at 3.
70 Liberty Petition at 2.
71 See Liberty Response (November 14, 1994) at 7.
72 480 U.S. 245 (1987).
73 WCA Reply at 7.
74 USTA Supporting Statement at 2; USTA Reply Comments at 5-6.
75 Id
4577
76on the regulatory model now applied to telephone.
30. On the other hand, NCTA, Time Warner and TKR Cable Company ("TKR") 
oppose Liberty's and NYNEX's proposals to change the demarcation point for multiple 
dwelling units, arguing that the proposals do not definitively measure the exact point of 
demarcation and are contrary to the plain language of the statute. They argue that Section 
16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act states that the home wiring rules are to apply to "cable installed 
by the cable operator within the premises of [the] subscriber."77 NCTA states that allowing a 
new service provider to go much beyond twelve inches invades the common wiring, which is 
the cable operator's property.78 Time Warner recommends that the most practical demarcation 
point in multiple dwelling units is the wall plate in each individual unit, not beyond twelve 
inches from where the wiring enters the individual dwelling unit.79
3. Discussion
31. We deny reconsideration of our rule setting the demarcation point for multiple 
dwelling units at or about twelve inches outside of where the cable wire enters the 
subscriber's dwelling unit. While the record in this proceeding does indicate that the 
Commission's current rules with regard to location of the demarcation point in multiple 
dwelling units may impede competition in the multichannel video programming delivery 
marketplace, the record is insufficient at this time to indicate whether a different demarcation 
point might better promote competition and consumer choice in the multichannel video 
programming delivery marketplace without an undue impact on competition in the market for 
other telecommunications services. We are concerned with more than simple competition in 
the broadband multichannel video programming market. We want to promote competition 
and consumer choice in all types of telecommunications markets through multiple 
technologies and services. The Commission therefore must consider broad 
telecommunications issues which extend beyond the 1992 Cable Act and the record in this 
proceeding before modifying the cable home wiring rules in ways that could have competitive 
implications for cable operators and other telecommunications service providers. Specifically, 
before the Commission can address the demarcation point in this context, we need a more
76 EIA/CEG Ex Parte Letter, supra note 11, at 1. But see Cable Telecommunications 
Association ("CATA") Ex Parte Comments (January 27, 1995) at 1-2 (treating cable and 
telephone infrastructures the same would, among other things, create a new "bottleneck" and 
the consumer would ultimately lose the opportunity to choose multiple broadband services 
from different providers).
77 NCTA Opposition at 5 citing 47 U.S.C. § 544(i) (1992); Time Warner Response at 4; 
TKR Opposition at 2.
78 NCTA Opposition at 5.
79 Time Warner Response at 2.
4578
complete record on several issues, including the impact of the convergence of telephone, 
broadband video and other technologies on the demarcation point location, and the appropriate 
level of compensation to be paid to a cable operator if the demarcation point is moved farther 
away from the subscriber's unit.
32. Accordingly, while we deny reconsideration of our current definition of the 
cable demarcation point for multiple dwelling unit buildings, we believe that it would be 
appropriate to revisit this issue in a broader competitive context   in other words, one which 
takes- into account all of the technical and legal factors that come into play with the 
convergence of telephone, broadband video and other technologies. We are, therefore, 
requesting comment on this demarcation point issue in our NPRM in CS Docket No. 95-184 
being adopted concurrently herewith. We expect to act quickly in the NPRM proceeding to 
resolve the demarcation point issue.
D. Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with Loop-Through Wiring
1. Background
33. In a loop-through cable wiring system, a single cable is used to provide service 
to either a portion of or an entire multiple dwelling unit building. Every subscriber on the 
loop is limited to receiving video services from the same provider; there is no capacity for 
individual choice. If the cable is broken or removed, signals to all succeeding units would be 
interrupted. In the Cable Wiring Order, the Commission excluded multiple dwelling unit 
loop-through wiring from the cable home wiring rules, reasoning that applying our rules to 
loop-through wiring would give the building manager or the initial subscriber control over 
cable service for all subscribers in the loop.80 Because loop-through configurations are 
excluded from the home wiring rules, cable operators are not required to offer to sell the wire 
to subscribers upon termination of service, and no loop-through subscriber has the right to 
purchase that portion of the loop-through cable wiring located inside his or her dwelling unit. 
The ownership of loop-through wiring therefore depends on a number of factors (e.g., who 
installed the wire, whether the wire has been sold and state fixture law) and is not affected by 
our rules.
2. Petitions
34. NYNEX asks that loop-through cable be included hi the home wiring rules and 
controlled by the multiple dwelling unit building owner. NYNEX and USTA also propose 
that the Commission require that loop-through and other configurations based on common use 
of unpowered coaxial cable be eliminated in all future multiple dwelling unit installations of
80 Cable Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red at 1437.
4579
cable home wiring.*1 Liberty also believes that loop-through systems should be included in 
the home wiring rules and placed under the control of the building owner, but only in the 
limited situation where all subscribers on a loop simultaneously decide to switch from one 
cable service provider to another.82
35. On the other hand, NCTA, Time Warner and TKR agree with the 
Commission's exclusion of multiple dwelling unit building loop-through configurations from 
the home wiring rules.83 Time Warner argues that the frequent turnover of multiple dwelling 
unit residents makes inclusion of loop-through multiple dwelling units impractical.84
3. Discussion
36. On reconsideration^ we continue to exclude loop-through wiring from our cable 
home wiring rules. Inclusion of loop-through systems within these rules would be 
impractical, in part because establishing a separate demarcation point for each subscriber on a 
loop-through system and deciding how much wiring each subscriber should have the option to 
buy are not feasible. Furthermore, loop-through configurations, by their nature, preclude 
individual subscriber control, an essential element of the Commission's cable home wiring 
rules. Therefore, cable operators are not required to offer to sell loop-through wiring to 
subscribers upon termination of service, and no loop-through subscriber has the right to 
purchase loop-through home wiring. We will, however, consider and request comment in our 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("FNPRM") below regarding Liberty's proposal that 
we allow the building owner to purchase the home wiring when all of the subscribers on a 
loop simultaneously decide to switch to an alternative video programming service provider. 
We will also request comment on NYNEX's and USTA's proposal that we prohibit future 
loop-through wiring installations and our authority, if any, to do so.
81 NYNEX Reply at 3; USTA Supporting Statement at 2. In addition, Bell Atlantic 
urges the Commission to bar exclusive contracts between cable operators and the owners or 
managers of multiple dwelling unit buildings, because such contracts allegedly circumvent the 
Commission's cable home wiring rules and deny residents the ability to choose between 
competing services. Bell Atlantic Response at 6. While the current record does not contain 
sufficient evidence to bear out Bell Atlantic's assertions   and thus we do not address them 
further here   the parties are free to raise this issue in the context of the NPRM in CS Docket 
No. 95-184, adopted concurrently herewith.
82 Liberty Petition at 6.
83 NCTA Opposition at 8; Time Warner Response at 8; TKR Opposition at 3-5.
84 Time Warner Response at 8.
4580
E. Inclusion of Passive Splitters within Cable Home Wiring 
/. Background and Petitions
37. Section 76.5(11) of the Commission's rules defines cable home wiring as the 
internal wiring contained within the subscriber's premises which begins at the demarcation 
point. The rule specifically excludes from cable home wiring any active elements such as 
amplifiers, converter or decoder boxes, or remote control units.85 In its petition for 
reconsideration, Liberty asks the Commission to "clarify that cable home wiring includes 
passive ancillary equipment such as splitters and conduits or molding in which the cable is 
installed."86 Liberty asserts that including such passive equipment within the definition of 
cable home wiring will allow Liberty and other cable competitors to avoid problems that arise 
when space constraints prohibit the installation of multiple splitters or conduits to access an 
individual subscriber's wires.87 Tune Warner and NCTA oppose this request, contending that 
is was the specific intent of Congress to exclude any cable equipment other than actual 
wiring.88 Tune Warner further contends that conduit and molding should be excluded from 
the Commission's definition of cable home wiring because they are not cable equipment, but 
rather the property of the premises owner. Tune Warner states that, at a minimum, splitters, 
which are passive cable equipment, should only be considered part of the home wiring if 
located within, or up to twelve inches outside the subscriber's premises.89
2. Discussion
38. We grant Liberty's request that we include passive splitters within the 
definition of cable home wiring. Because passive splitters are a physically integral part of the 
home wiring, we believe that their exclusion could frustrate the purposes behind Section 16(d) 
of the 1992 Cable Act   i.e., to permit subscribers to avoid the disruption of having their 
home wiring removed, and to subsequently utilize the home wiring for an alternative video 
programming service. For instance, if a cable operator is allowed to remove splitters attached 
to the home wiring without first offering to sell them to the terminating subscriber, the 
subscriber could be subjected to the same disruption and inconvenience that would occur if 
the home wiring was removed. In addition, we do not believe that it will harm the cable 
operator to be required to offer to sell splitters on the same replacement cost basis as wiring is 
to be offered. Therefore, operators will be required to offer to sell to a terminating subscriber
85 47 C.F.R. § 76.5(11).
86 Liberty Petition at 5.
87 Id at 5-6.
88 Tune Warner Response at 7; NCTA Opposition at 7-8.
89 Time Warner Response at 6-8.
4581
any passive splitters attached to the home wiring on the subscriber's side of the demarcation 
point, at no more than the replacement cost of the splitters.
39. However, we deny Liberty's request that other passive equipment be included 
within the cable home wiring definition. We agree with Time Warner that molding and 
conduit are not necessarily cable equipment and are often the property of the premises owner. 
In addition, we believe that, considering the wide variety of passive equipment and related 
property, it would be too burdensome to require cable operators to be prepared to quote the 
replacement cost of such equipment and property upon the subscriber's termination of service. 
Nevertheless, we understand Liberty's concern that cable operators not be permitted to use 
their ownership of other property relating to the cable home wiring to frustrate the purposes 
of our cable home wiring rules and Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable Act. We will therefore 
prohibit cable operators from using any ownership interests they have in property located on 
the subscriber's side of the demarcation point, for example, cable molding or conduit, to 
prevent, impede, or in any way interfere with, a subscriber's right to use his or her home 
wiring to receive an alternative service.
HI. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. Multiple Dwelling Unit Buildings with Loop-Through Wiring
40. We solicit comment on Liberty's request that the Commission require cable 
operators to allow a building owner to purchase loop-through wiring in the limited situation 
where all subscribers hi a multiple dwelling unit building want to switch to a new service 
provider. We ask whether we should apply the same rules regarding compensation (i.e., 
wiring may be purchased at the per-foot replacement cost) and technical standards to loop- 
through wiring that we now apply to non-loop-through wiring. We solicit comment on the 
appropriate demarcation point for this limited application of the home wiring rules. We note, 
however, that we are concerned with allowing the multiple dwelling unit building owner to 
control the wiring since such control could arguably supersede subsequent subscribers' wishes. 
We therefore solicit comment on how to apportion control of a loop-through wiring system, 
including how to assure that subscribers have a choice of multichannel video programming 
service providers. We further solicit comment on whether we should prohibit future 
installations of loop-through wiring configurations, and whether we have the statutory . 
authority to do so.
B. Others' Rights to Cable Home Wiring
41. We solicit comment on several issues raised in this proceeding regarding the 
rights of persons other than the subscriber or the cable operator to cable home wiring. For 
instance, it has been asserted that the Commission's cable home wiring rules do not apply 
when the owner of a multiple dwelling unit building terminates cable service for the entire
4582
building in favor of an alternative multichannel video programming service provider.90 
According to the record, at least one cable operator has contended that no "voluntary 
termination by the subscriber," as provided in Section 76.802 of our rules,91 has occurred 
when it is the building owner or condominium association that terminates the service, or at 
least that the subscriber has not voluntarily terminated the cable service.92 In order to 
promote the goals of Section 16(d) and our rules thereunder, it may be appropriate for the 
subscriber (where there is a non-loop-through wire configuration) or the building owner 
(where there is a loop-through wire configuration) to be given the opportunity to purchase the 
cable home wiring under these circumstances. We request comment on this matter. In 
addition, we seek comment on whether this right of a building owner with a loop-through 
system should only apply if all of the individual subscribers want to terminate service and 
switch to a new video service provider, as described in Section III.A. above.
42. In addition, we ask for comment on the disposition of the cable home wiring in 
the event that a subscriber terminates cable service, elects not to purchase the wire and 
vacates the premises within the time period the operator has to remove the home wiring. 
Apparently some cable operators believe that our rule providing that the cable operator must 
remove the wire within 30 days (now seven business days) or make no subsequent attempt to 
remove it or to restrict its use does not apply if the subscriber vacates the premises before the 
30-day (now seven-business-day) period elapses. We believe that, as long as the cable 
operator has been allowed access to the premises to remove its wiring if it so wishes, whether 
the subscriber vacates the premises has no bearing on the application of our rules, and that the 
cable operator must therefore remove the wire within seven business days93 of the subscriber's 
termination of service, or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use, 
regardless of who subsequently resides in the premises. We request comment on this matter. 
Furthermore, we seek comment on whether, when the subscriber voluntarily terminating cable 
service does not own the premises, the premises owner should have the right to purchase the 
cable home wiring if and only if the subscriber elects not to purchase the wire.
90 See Ex Parte Letter from William R. Gaston, President, Marco Island Cable, Inc., to 
William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (July 19, 1995).
91 47 C.F.R. § 76.802.
92 See Marco Cable Ex Parte Letter, supra note 90, at Attachment.
93 As discussed above, we are amending this rule so that operators will have seven 
business days to remove the wiring, rather than 30 days.
4583
IV. REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis for the First Order on 
Reconsideration
43. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, the 
Commission's final analysis with respect to the First Order on Reconsideration is as follows:
44. Need and Purpose of this Action. The Commission amends its rules pertaining 
to cable home wiring to better effectuate the purposes of Section 16(d) of the Cable 
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, 47 U.S.C. § 544(i) (1992).
45. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public in response to the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. There were no comments submitted in response to the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis.
46. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected. Petitioners representing cable 
interests and competitive video providers did not submit comments regarding the 
administrative burden of the home wiring rules.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis for the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking
47. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has 
prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility analysis ("IRFA") of the expected impact 
of these proposed policies and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested 
on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as 
comments on the rest of the FNPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading 
designating them as responses to the regulatory flexibility analysis. The Secretary shall cause 
a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (1981).
48. Reason for Action. Section 16(d) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection 
and Competition Act of 1992 requires the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations 
regarding the disposition of cable wiring within the subscriber's premises after the subscriber 
terminates service. This FNPRM proposes to allow the multiple dwelling unit building owner 
to purchase the loop-through cable wiring in the situation where all subscribers on a loop in a 
multiple dwelling unit building want to simultaneously switch to the same alternative 
multichannel video programming service provider. This FNPRM also proposes: (a) to 
require that the subscriber (where there is a non-loop-through wire configuration) or the 
building owner (where there is a loop-through wire configuration) be provided with the 
opportunity to purchase the cable home wiring when the owner of a multiple dwelling unit 
building terminates cable service for the entire building in favor of an alternative multichannel
4584
video programming service provider; (b) to clarify that, as long as the cable operator has been 
allowed access to the premises to remove its wiring if it so wishes, the cable operator must 
remove the wire within seven business days of the subscriber's termination of service, or 
make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict its use, regardless of when the 
subscriber vacates the premises and who subsequently resides in the premises; and (c) when 
the subscriber voluntarily terminating cable service does not own the premises, to give the 
premises owner the right to purchase the cable home wiring, if and only if the subscriber 
elects not to purchase the wire.
49. Objectives. To propose rules which implement Section 16(d) of the 1992 Cable 
Act and promote its goals of protecting subscribers from unnecessary disruption and expense 
caused by the removal of home wiring and to allow subscribers to use the wiring for an 
alternative multichannel video programming service provider.
50. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j) and 624(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151, 
154(i), 1540) and 544(i).
51. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities Affected. The 
proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small 
entities.
52. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. None.
53. Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these Rules. None.
54. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities and 
Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
V. PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
55. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This First Order on 
Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Order and FNPRM") contains 
either a proposed or modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained 
in this Order and FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 
104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same tune as other comments on the 
FNPRM; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Order and 
FNPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 
the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
4585
on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
56. Ex pane Rules - Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-restricted notice and 
comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in Commission's rules. 
See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
57. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on 
or before March 18, 1996 and reply comments on or before April 17, 1996. To file formally 
in this proceeding, you must file an original plus four copies of all comments, reply 
comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to receive a personal 
copy of your comments and reply comments, you must file an original plus nine copies. You 
should send comments and reply comments to Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and 
reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the 
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street 
N.W., Washington D.C. 20554.
58. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information 
collections are due March 18, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on 
or before 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing 
comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections 
contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to 
dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.
VL ORDERING CLAUSES
59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration in MM 
Docket No. 92-260 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as provided above 
herein.
60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 76 of the Commission's rules IS 
HEREBY AMENDED as shown in Appendix B. The portions of the First Order on 
Reconsideration imposing information collections will not go into effect until approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j) and 624(i) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j) and 544(i), 
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with the
4586
proposals, discussions, and statement of issues in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT regarding such proposals, discussion, and statement of 
issues.
62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary shall send a copy of this First 
Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 
No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq. (1981).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
4587
APPENDIX A
Parties Who Filed Petitions for Reconsideration, Responses and Replies 
Petitions For Reconsideration of the Cable Wiring Order
Petition of Liberty Cable Company , Inc. for Reconsideration and Clarification, filed April 1,
1993 ("Liberty Petition") 
Petition for Reconsideration of the NYNEX Telephone Companies, filed April 1, 1993
("NYNEX Petition") 
Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. Petition for Partial Reconsideration, filed April
1, 1993 ("WCA Petition")
Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
Response of Bell Atlantic to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18, 1993 (" Bell Atlantic
Response") 
Coriments of the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association, filed
May 15, 1993 ("EIA/CEG Comments"). 
Supporting Comments of GTE Service Corporation, filed May 18, 1993 ("GTE Supporting
Comments") 
National Cable Television Association, Inc. Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration filed
May 18, 1993 ("NCTA Opposition") 
Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell Comments on Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18,
1993 ("Pacific Bell Comments") 
Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. Response to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed
May 18, 1993 ("Time Warner Response") 
Opposition of TKR Cable Company to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 18, 1993
("TKR Opposlaon") 
Supporting Statement of the United States Telephone Association, filed May 18, 1993
("USTA Supporting Statement") 
Response of WJB-TV Limited Partnership to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed April 15,
1993 ("WJB-TV Limited Partnership Response")
Replies to Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
Reply of Bell Atlantic to Comments on Reconsideration, filed June 3, 1993 ("Bell Atlantic
Reply") 
Reply of the Nynex Telephone Companies to Oppositions to their Petition for
Reconsideration, filed June 3, 1993 ("NYNEX Reply") 
Reply Comments of the United States Telephone Association, filed June 2, 1993 ("USTA
Reply Comments") 
Wireless Cable Association Reply to Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May
28, 1993 ("WCA Reply")
4588
APPENDIX B
Revised Rules 
Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulation is amended as follows:
1. Part 76.5 is amended to read as follows: 
Section 76.5(11) Cable home wiring.
The internal wiring contained within the premises of a subscriber which begins at the 
demarcation point. Cable home wiring includes passive splitters on the subscriber's side of 
the demarcation point, but does not include any active elements such as amplifiers, converter 
or decoder boxes, or remote control units.
2. Section 76.802 is amended to read as follows: 
Section 76.802 Disposition of Cable Home Wiring.
(a) Upon voluntary termination of cable service by a subscriber, a cable operator shall 
not remove the cable home wiring unless it gives the subscriber the opportunity to purchase 
the wiring at the replacement cost, and the subscriber declines. The cost is to be determined 
based on the replacement cost per foot of the cable home wiring multiplied by the length in 
feet of the cable home wiring, and the replacement cost of any passive splitters located on the 
subscriber's side of the demarcation point. If the subscriber declines to acquire the cable 
home wiring, the cable system operator must then remove it within seven (7) business days, 
under normal operating conditions, or make no subsequent attempt to remove it or to restrict 
its use.
(b) During the initial telephone call in which a subscriber contacts a cable operator to 
voluntarily terminate cable service, the cable operator   if it owns and intends to remove the 
home wiring   must inform the subscriber:
(1) that the cable operator owns the home wiring;
(2) that the cable operator intends to remove the home wiring;
(3) that the subscriber has the right to purchase the home wiring; and
(4) what the per-foot replacement cost and total charge for the wiring would be (the 
total charge may be based on either the actual length of cable wiring and the actual 
number of passive splitters on the customer's side of the demarcation point, or a 
reasonable approximation thereof; hi either event, the information necessary for 
calculating the total charge must be available for use during the initial phone call).
4589
(c) If the subscriber voluntarily terminates cable service in person, the procedures set 
forth in subsection (b) hereof apply.
(d) If the subscriber requests termination of cable service in writing, it is the operator's 
responsibility   if it wishes to remove the wiring   to make reasonable efforts to contact the 
subscriber prior to the date of service termination and follow the procedures set forth in 
subsection (b) hereof.
(e) If the cable operator fails to adhere to the procedures described in subsection (b) 
hereof, it will be deemed to have relinquished immediately any and all ownership interests in 
the home wiring; thus, the operator will not be entitled to compensation for the wiring and 
shall make no subsequent attempt to remove it or restrict its use.
(f) If the cable operator adheres to the procedures described in subsection (b) hereof, 
and, at that point, the subscriber agrees to purchase the wiring, constructive ownership over 
the home wiring will transfer to the subscriber immediately, and the subscriber will be 
permitted to authorize a competing service provider to connect with and use the home wiring.
(g) If the cable operator adheres to the procedures described in subsection (b) hereof, 
and the subscriber asks for more time to make a decision regarding whether to purchase the 
home wiring, the seven (7) business day period described in subsection (a) hereof will not 
begin running until the subscriber declines to purchase the wiring; in addition, the subscriber 
may not use the wiring to connect to an alternative service provider until the subscriber 
notifies the operator whether or not the subscriber wishes to purchase the wiring.
(h) If an alternative video programming service provider connects its wiring to the 
home wiring before the incumbent cable operator has terminated service and has capped off 
its line to prevent signal leakage, the alternative video programming service provider shall be 
responsible for ensuring that the incumbent's wiring is properly capped off in accordance with 
the Commission's signal leakage requirements. See Subpart K (technical standards) of the 
Commission's Cable Television Service rules (47 CFR §§ 76.605(a)(13) and 76.610-76.617).
(i) Where the subscriber terminates cable service but will not be using the home wiring 
to receive another alternative video programming service, the cable operator shall properly cap 
off its own line in accordance with the Commission's signal leakage requirements. See 
Subpart K (technical standards) of the Commission's Cable Television Service rules (47 CFR 
§§ 76.605(a)(13) and 76.610-76.617).
(j) Cable operators are prohibited from using any ownership interests they may have 
in property located on the subscriber's side of the demarcation point, such as molding or 
conduit, to prevent, impede, or in any way interfere with, a subscriber's right to use his or her 
home wiring to receive an alternative service. In addition, incumbent cable operators must 
take reasonable steps within their control to ensure that an alternative service provider has
4590
access to the home wiring at the demarcation point. Cable operators and alternative 
multichannel video programming delivery service providers are required to minimize the 
potential for signal leakage in accordance with the guidelines set forth in 47 CFR §§ 
76.605(a)(13) and 76.610-76.617, theft of service and unnecessary disruption of the 
consumer's premises.
(k) Definitions  
(i) Normal operating conditions — The term "normal operating conditions" shall have 
the same meaning as at 47 CFR § 76.309(c)(4)(ii).
4591
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG
Re: Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 
1992: Cable Home Wiring, First Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, MM Docket No. 92-260
The cable home wiring reconsideration order makes several important 
improvements to our existing cable home wiring rules, and thus, I generally support it. I 
am particularly pleased with the portion of the order that makes modifications to 
procedures for the disposition of cable home wiring upon termination of service. These 
revised procedures will promote consumer choice and competition by making it easier for 
consumers to use their home wiring for alternative video programming services and in the 
future, alternative local telephone services.
Although I support the order, I write separately to note that I would have 
preferred to have granted the petitions for reconsideration filed by the Nynex Telephone 
Companies and others. These petitions sought to move the demarcation point in multi- 
dwelling unit ("MDU") buildings to a point where more convenient and cost-effective 
access is available.
Our current rules place the demarcation point at 12 inches outside the subscriber's 
premises. Although this demarcation point appears to be appropriate for single family 
dwellings, the record in this proceeding has convinced me that the 12 inch rule is 
problematic in the context of MDUs. In many instances, the demarcation point is not 
physically accessible because it is inside of a wall. Even in those cases where it is accessible, 
the competing service provider has to install duplicative, subscriber-dedicated wire in order 
to access the demarcation point. This process is not only costly, but often requires 
construction work to be performed in the common areas of the MDU. Such construction 
work may serve as a disincentive to, or is prohibited by, the building owner.1 As a 
practical matter, what this means is that it is less likely that MDU dwellers will have a 
choice of video providers.
In my view, the proposal made by the Wireless Cable Association ("WCA") to 
move the demarcation point to the point where the line becomes dedicated to the 
individual subscriber is consistent with the purpose of Section 16(d) of the Cable Act. The
1 See Nynex Telephone Companies Petition for Reconsideration at 3-4; Liberty Cable 
Company, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration and Clarification at 3-5.
4592
purpose of Section 16(d) is to promote consumer choice and competition by permitting 
subscribers to avoid the disruption of having home wiring removed on voluntary 
termination and to subsequently utilize that wiring for an alternative video programming 
service.2 WCA's proposal accomplishes these goals by making it significantly easier and less 
costly for alternative providers to utilize existing wires. In addition, locating the 
demarcation point at a point where the line becomes dedicated to the individual subscriber 
ensures that the common line of the incumbent provider is not disturbed, thereby 
preventing signal theft and interference with service to other customers.
While I would have preferred to move the demarcation point immediately, I am 
nonetheless heartened that the reconsideration order acknowledges that the current 
demarcation point may inhibit competition in the multichannel video programming 
marketplace. I support the commitment the Commission has made to address this issue 
promptly in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted today in our Telecommunications 
Services Inside Wiring proceeding. I support the Notice because I believe that there is value 
in looking at the cable demarcation point location in a broader proceeding that considers 
the convergence of telephony, video services and other technology. Finally, I concur that 
the Commission needs more information on the appropriate level of compensation 
incumbent cable operators should receive if the demarcation point is extended.
2 Cable Home Wiring Order, 8 FCC Red 1435 (1993) citing H.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d 
Cong. 2d Sess. at 118.
4593